The Chameleon Who Lost His Disguise

The big focus of the week is the economy. Which is a shame as there’s loads to write about and loads of discussion points (maximum wage, anyone?). But instead, I’ll focus on the method of the government’s cuts and a worrying habit that has emerged; denial.

The UK economy shrunk by 0.5% and unlike the global recession of yesteryear ,this is unique to Britain. Surely this is a sign that the government is going the wrong way; the focus of their economic policy is growth (misguided, the focus of economic policy should be employment – perhaps a subject for another blog) and they have failed in their aim. So, what’s their response? To ignore it, pretend it did not happen. From the BBC; George Osborne says the UK must move from "securing financial stability" to "securing consistent growth". But, we recorded a drop, surely a sign we have yet to secure financial stability, and any talk of consistent growth is premature. And yet Osborne shrugs it all off to the weather. No comment necessary. Let's just remember what Brian Cowen's denial in November did to Ireland...

It’s curious how every time a Conservative is on air they say the exact same phrase; “the mess Labour got us into”. This is a much overused phrase of suspicious proportions. Alright, let’s admit, the economy was not in the best of shapes when the Conservatives inherited it, but they have built up a Sorelian myth surrounding the economic situation as if it’s the worst thing this country has ever faced and it is ‘all Labour’s fault’. In reality, the ‘crisis’ is not Labour’s fault, and Labour were doing a pretty decent job of recovery. So let’s play mythbusters and clear things up.

The ‘economic crisis’ is really two crises; a recession and a deficit. In 2008 the UK went into recession. Now, I’m no economist, but good non-partisan sources have informed me that to get out of recession one has to spend one’s way out. That is precisely what Labour did and as a consequence, the UK left recession under Labour. Brown even won an international economic award for his decisive actions. Nationalising Northern Rock was the right decision in hindsight. One can compare the situation to the US who did not save Lehman Brothers and suffered the consequences of its collapse longer and harder. In short, Labour got the UK out of recession. Furthermore, this recession was not Labour’s fault. Look at Ireland, Greece, Portugal, the USA, they all suffered recession, yet to blame Labour or Gordon Brown for them would be ludicrous. The recession was caused by something which transcends nations, namely the markets. An unfortunate truth that the government must accept is that the recession was a crisis in the private sector, the very private sector which is getting corporate tax reductions and extortionate bonuses. The recession was a global phenomenon and Labour dealt with it pretty well. 

Spending one’s way out of recession naturally puts one in a deficit. This dreaded deficit which is the bane of society and has wreaked havoc on us and will be the end of civilisation, this deficit prevented the UK going into depression; this deficit saved the UK. The deficit is historically not big anyway – 1945 had a greater deficit and yet the NHS was created and the UK rebuilt. No matter how many times they say it, and how many vague words are used by the media which no one understands, it won’t come true; their slashing of public services is not the solution.

Labour are not perfect and mistakes were made; they should have been more cautious and frugal, they should have changed the system and implemented more limits. But to pin the blame squarely on Labour is mistaken and delusional. The worry is, many conservatives probably believe it simply on petty party political grounds.

We may have gone through an economic recession and financial deficit, but that is no excuse for social recession or moral deficit. There is no justification for cutting EMA, Sure Start or disability allowance to name just three. Cutting these is a major step back for the country. Even the USA is investing in education and future jobs. There are three core responsibilities of government; education, health and security, we are seeing cuts and poorly thought out reforms in all three. Privatisation can be beneficial in some sectors (hold on), but these three are best left to government or else we are left with American health, education and prison models. We don’t want that. Trust me. Though the number one task of government is the elimination of poverty; Labour cut poverty by 49%, very admirable. These reforms and cuts look set to reverse that work (and I don’t like predicting doom and gloom).

What’s more, these neo-liberal steps will make Britain more unequal and that will increase poverty, crime, illness, anxiety, prison population, obesity, teenage births and decrease trust, community, social mobility and educational performance. An exhaustive and possibly obscure list to some, but justified by the findings in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s book ‘The Spirit Level’, an important book (though some parts are strangely written or concluded). An increase in inequality, even if (big if) we see an increase in ‘growth’, will increase health and social problems. This is why the focus of economic policy should be society rather than statistics and "growth".

Here’s a laugh from Chris Grayling saying that youth unemployment was a direct consequence of the failings of Labour. What failing? The now cut EMA, the now cut building schools for the future fund, the hike in tuition fees giving less opportunity to young people or the now cut guaranteed employment for 18-25 year olds? Again, sheer unproductive denial. The Conservatives are suffering a moral deficit that will lead to social recession. The path they are taking us on will undo all the progress Labour has done, seemingly only because ‘Labour did it’. It sounds pessimistic, and I despise unfair accusation, but their denial of progress is harmful and will further harm society.

I don’t want to come here and start bashing the rich, but coming down hard on tax evaders (avoiders?), tightening tax loopholes and a small, even temporary increase in tax to those earning over £100,000 would all make a massive difference to reducing the deficit and help protect services. Or cutting the pay of politicians by at least 5%; people don’t get into politics for fortune but to make a difference, and politicians should lead by example. If any cuts are to be made, the honourable thing to do would be to cut the pay at Westminster. And the lesson to be learnt, lest we forget; control the boom, manage the bust. Except, of course, the Conservatives aren’t fond of that. Unless they learn that most basic of lessons of the very capitalist economics they are supposed to espouse, the economy won’t be the only thing to go bust.

Or how about this; one in four charities in the North East of England are closing down due to lack of funding, I don’t know what the rate is in Merseyside. The Conservatives are the party that favour the ‘Big Society’, which is essentially volunteering, much like what charities (who are currently chronically short of volunteers) do, and they are the party that favours private investment. There are several millionaires in the government and Conservative backbench. See what I’m getting at? Maybe they should put their money where their mouth is and invest it in North East charities. I’m not accusing anyone of hypocrisy, but... well I am.

Britain is alone in slashing the deficit so much; “We directed it to investments in research and development, in a ‘put work first’ principle. And also combined with very active labour policy, on-the-job training and measures like that. I think that has given us a position where we were trying to increase mobility, and to give resources to what was to come, not so much give money to what has been.” Fredrick Reinfeldt, the Conservative PM of Sweden, who somewhat unfairly has been labelled the “Swedish Cameron”. He has the right idea, ‘put work first’ principle, so why have we in the UK, both Conservatives (fairly obviously) and Labour (fairly shamefully), not done likewise?

Or what about Merkel, whose priorities are also in job investment or Sarkozy, who directed, possibly in the speech of his presidency, a need to curb market volatility and tax market transactions, or Berlusconi who has hidden the economic woes with news of his affairs (genius). All of them conservatives, all of them facing difficult cuts, yet all of them investing and reforming in the right area. And yet the British Conservatives are cutting vital investment in education and are refusing the obvious; the financial system needs reform, not reversal.

Britain is unique in the way we are tackling the deficit, is there any surprise we are the only country to record a downturn? The plans of other nations show that there are other ways of dealing with the deficit, even methods that suit the Conservative ideology of minimising the state. Perhaps our lot are so blinded by ideology that they cannot see through their fanaticism at the social damage being done and will be done by their plans. What we have in government are not Conservatives, but fanatic Thatcherites.

The report for the next financial quarter will make or break the government, especially if other nations report growth. There is no place to hide – it cannot be “Labour’s fault” and not even fully the fault of the private sector. If the UK suffers another loss, what then? Will they admit to being wrong or will they carry on slashing away? May is, once again, judgement day for the Conservatives, but this time there is more on the line.

[In case you're wondering about the title, anyone remember "Dave the Chameleon?". It was either than or a "Curious George" reference, or simply "Economics".]

A Blue Dawn Over Europe

A curious phenomenon has happened in the EU states. Of the 8 parliamentary elections in 2010, all were won by conservatives. On top of that, only 6 out of 27 states in the EU are governed by socialists or social democrats. How and why did this happen? Is this the end of socialism in Europe? Where do we go from here?

European Parliamentary elections 2009 - The shape of things to come?

Bit of housekeeping; 'conservative' parties across the EU are only ‘conservative’ relative to their respective political atmosphere. The Toryism of the British conservatives does not resemble the conservatism of the ‘Moderate Party’ in Sweden. Traditionalists in Poland, who are no less than mad and corrupt, are very different to the neo-liberals of the Netherlands, yet both are “conservative” relative to their political scenes. (for more on Conservatism, albeit American, I recommend Adam Wolfson 'Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives' in 'Neo-Conservatism' by Irwing Stelzer)

A quick rundown of the parliamentary elections in the EU in 2010; Hungary, Czech Republic, Britain (I’m sure we don’t need any reminding), Sweden, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium and Latvia.

What is remarkable is how in all those elections the 'conservatives' won. Or they at least ended up forming a government if they did not top the election. This was whether they were challenging as in Britain, or incumbent as in Sweden and Latvia. Even in the Netherlands public dissatisfaction at the Christian Democrat government led the way for fiscal conservatives rather than social democrats, albeit narrowly. No matter what the circumstance, the blues won.

It is not just that conservatives have had a sweep. 2009 saw the elimination of the socialists in Germany, the socialists in Hungary gained 30% less votes than just four years prior, the socialists in Poland are not a main party and in Sweden they lost two elections in a row for the first time ever. Mark Rutte is the first fiscal conservative in the Netherlands in nearly 90 years. Not only did conservatives win, but the social democrats comprehensively lost in a lot of places. In other places socialism is a non-entity; Latvia has never had a socialist government since independence, Berlusconi in Italy has more chance of being kicked out by his coalition partners than by socialists, and French socialists cannot buy a national victory. The problem lies beyond election results; there is a lack of social belief in reds across the continent. There is a real problem for socialism across the EU.

Perhaps equally worrying is that out of the six states with a socialist government, three are Spain, Portugal and Greece. Another is Cyprus which is governed by the “Progressive Party of Working People”, or communists (just look at their badge), the fifth is Austria which governs in a coalition with the ‘blue’ party and the sixth is Slovenia, the second smallest state in the EU, only behind Luxembourg, whose political scene has seen socialists in government for just four years since 1945. So the present situation is not a promising advert for European socialism.

Why has this happened? Has socialism failed in the land of the welfare states? Not at all, in fact if anything it is economic “conservatism” (which in reality is “classic liberalism” – don’t you just love ideological labels) which has failed to deliver, and socialist governments have been taking the flak. Socialism has only been at fault in Europe where the states have spent beyond their means leading to irresponsible lending and the second sin of household economics; never get into debt. The problem in Greece was not socialism, but the Olympics and years of poor economic management from both parties. In Ireland the problem was the fiscal bubble and toxic loans with some more economic irresponsibility, not socialism. Their messes were caused by banks and corporations. The lesson from the ordeal is surely the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust; so control the boom, manage the bust (and kick out speculation). In the Eurozone, it was lack of union and lack of solidarity that has caused their economic plight rather than an inherent fault in one currency. It seems so obvious now in retrospect; if one shares currency then one needs to work together. Another key aspect often overlooked is the long term de-industrialisation of Europe; service based economies are not stable. Even on a parochial level, there is one common complaint aimed towards the "peoples' parties", and I’m sure we've all heard this on the doorstep, “You’re never there for us.” Not only have we got to unite on the continent to fix our problems, we have to all get back on the streets and talk with people. Socialism is about people, first and foremost (a social movement before a party). There has been a disconnect; bluntly this needs to be amended. We need to cleanse politics of incompetence, corruption and backstabbing and rebuild trust in politics by getting back to the people. That’s not just here in Britain, but everywhere.

Socialism has not failed, though some red parties do need a good kicking (Hungary), but socialism in Europe needs to set its priorities and have clarity. What is needed is not the traditional internationalism of ye olde socialists (workers of the world unite!) or globalism of neo-liberals (bankers of the world unite!), but a continental solution (Europe unite!). Each state is different and faces its own problems, but the states can help each other out by encouraging inter-continental trade and closer union. Socialism in EU states has countless success stories, and doubtless there will be many more. But the lack of European solidarity is what is hindering the European movement. Through the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone (sound familiar?), that applies particularly to European states. Socialism in the continent has not failed, but it needs more clarity, to set its priorities, to go back to the people, redefine itself and, most importantly, solidarity.

Solidarity. A powerful word that has broken walls and overthrown dictators, and a word I firmly believe will shape and define the future of Europe. Socialist parties need solidarity, not centrism. Together, we can build a brighter and stronger Europe. A Europe that is self-determining, self-reliant and self-sufficient, a Europe determined by European thought and belief rather than America-centric capitalist thought. A Europe that puts people before profit, rights before riches, and has employment and welfare at its core. It is the social democratic parties of Europe, working together and in union, that will bring this Europe. They have not been wiped out, and as long as they keep believing and fighting, they never will be.

Rather, what happened in 2010 was not a ‘sweep’ or a mass ideological change in the people of Europe. Conservative parties won for different reasons; in Sweden the incumbent Reinfeldt is popular and did a good job, in Hungary the socialists were tragically incompetent, hopelessly corrupt and were even recorded calling themselves useless, whereas in Britain the Labour party came to the end of its cycle after thirteen years – politics works in swings and roundabouts, except apparently in Luxembourg. In Slovakia the socialists actually gained 5% and had more than double the votes of the second placed party, they only lost because four other parties formed a coalition of losers. A similar thing happened in the Czech Republic with the social democrats narrowly winning the election yet three other parties forming the government. No doubt such a move in Britain would have made Nick Robinson foam at the mouth and literally explode. There was no connecting factor in voting patterns throughout Europe; the only common factor was the economic situation and even then incumbents were retained in office (Sweden and Latvia) and solutions to it differed; Britain’s Conservatives want quick and savage cuts, Sweden's are gentler. A British solution is to raise tuition fees and VAT, but no such measures are true of Irish or Slovak conservatives. Estonia’s solution is to join the Eurozone, with the crisis spurring it on to enhance business and trade. Victory for conservative parties in 2010 does not mark an ideological change in Europe; there were lots of different and unconnected reasons why they swept into office, continent wide.

There is some consolation for socialists from 2010; the Austrian presidential election was won by a socialist with a whopping 79%. Granted, he ran against the Austrian equivalent of Nick Griffin in a skirt (Barbara Rosenkranz, look her up for a laugh) and the main conservative party did not field a candidate, but a win is a win. The Czech senate election saw social democrats gain and the blues of all shades lose seats, the caveat being that it was only one third of the senate in the election, and the senate is largely second fiddle. Social democratic parties are further bolstered by positive local elections in France, Greece and Britain (+414 councillors and +14 councils, the news did not report), which still show great support.

Furthermore, the signs are looking good. The Labour Party in Ireland look set to gain from the collapse of Fianna Fail, meanwhile the Partie Socialiste (France) are in unfamiliar territory of positive polls. Denmark looks likely to be heading back for a socialist government. Even here in Britain the Labour party stormed the local elections, not to mention Labour’s swing in the polls reaching up to the heights of 43% (Polls are hilariously unreliable and lead public opinion more than they show it, but it’s still better than the 25% depths of a year prior). And despite losing, reds in Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands were not wiped out. Things are going to get better for the reds in 2011.

This may sound like a quick get out of an answer, but this ‘conservative sweep’ was just coincidence. Socialism is not dead in Europe, and as long as there is the welfare state, the ideas of equality, fairness, liberty and other European values, we will never succumb to the Americanised ideology of the glorified individual or blind market trust with even blinder government mistrust. The EU is not united enough for the results to be connected; what happens in Lithuania has little apparent consequence in Ireland. This sweep in 2010 is simply a coincidence, a curious phenomenon and nothing more. It's a bleak picture, but 2010 is not “the year the conservatives won” or “the year socialism died”, it does not mark the beginning or the end of any European movement. Instead it is simply a year where several unrelated but comparable parties won. Nothing more.

Now stop panicking.

Fabian New Year Conference 2011

Jonathon Morris, Andrew Shearwood, Jodie-Louise Kane, Hetty Wood and Steph Dickinson heading into the London underground. Photographs by James Roberts.

On the 15th January a group of Fabians from the Liverpool Universities woke up bright and early in a flat somewhere in central London in preparation for the New Year Conference. A group of five had travelled the five hour coach journey down from The Regions, linked up with another two members, and went to see what the conference had to offer.

Wristbands appropriated in the lobby (and at this point a big thanks really must be given to Adrian Prandle, chair of the Young Fabians, for ensuring that all of the delegation were made to feel welcome!) the day started off with the keynote by Ed Miliband. A somewhat long and methodical oratory was given by the leader; competent but rather lacklustre and lacking in any emotional resonance. Having witnessed Miliband raise his game and actually speak with a spark of passion previously – the Manchester leadership hustings springs to mind (from 1:26:00 for a case in point) – it was rather disappointing to listen to a speech which gave the impression of being ‘just enough’, whilst preaching to the converted. Nevertheless it was coherent, persuasive and offered a realistic vision for the future of social democracy in this country, and even included his ‘too technocratic and managerial’ buzzword combination which we have all grown fond of over the course of his leadership bid.

All seven slipped into the first panel of the day, the fourth on the list, ‘Winning the argument: what can we learn from the right?’ which was over-attended and left many standing, and sitting, around the edges of the room. Still, an interesting debate emerged with Laurie Penny (always interesting to listen to, but perhaps sometimes a bit too quick to speak without thinking) and Tim Montgomerie somewhat taking over the first half of the session talking about whether or not Tories ‘cared’. Insights from Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and well thought out points from Chuka Umunna MP, left the room with a wealth of ideas on just what we on the left can take from how the right acts and campaigns.

Jonathon Morris and Steph Dickinson.

A Lunchtime Fringe event was hosted by the Young Fabians themselves, and so satiated with pizza and after having a quick glance around at the stalls outside the conference hall, the issue of ‘Squeezed Youth: how can Labour reconnect?’ was tackled. Although worthy, the debate was somewhat dry in places and didn’t truly address the issue, indeed as has been pointed out ‘Youth Politics’ is often too narrowly defined and patronising in its outlook. Dr Maurice Glasman stole the show somewhat with his opinionated comments on how worthwhile such meetings are, but as a whole the session was well conceived and implemented.

Splitting into two for the afternoon panel, ‘The Democracy Challenge: what really needs to change?’ took the interest of five (hardly surprising with the upcoming debate being organised by the group) with the others going across to ‘Green Gloom: how do we win the argument for the planet?’ Somewhat lacking in a voice from the No Campaign, or indeed any delegate seemingly supporting such a side, the debate on AV was one-sided but achieved its aim moderately well and was very capably chaired by Jason Cowley of the New Statesman. Democracy is not something that should be taken for granted, nor that should be immune from improvement, and indeed the main point that came out would be the need for education of the public on the very nature and benefits of AV with even some in the room unaware of its specific workings (it was over an hour before one member of the audience felt it worthwhile to ask ‘what exactly is AV?’). The panel on climate change was also interesting and whilst some of the suggestions were controversial, the consesus was that Meg Hillier MP’s talk on volunteering to help direct policy left a definite impression on many in the room.

James Benton and Andrew Shearwood.

This was followed by the much talked about ‘Democracy Dragons’ and a small meeting with Preth Rao, Young Fabian Membership Involvement Officer, about how best to evolve and continue with the University Society. The end of the Conference was marked by the obligatory reception at which everyone got the chance to opine over the day with a cool drink in hand. Some felt that ‘what can the left learn from the right’ was good, although the debate about increasing democratic access was also liked. Agreement was reached that it had been a very interesting, worthwhile and pleasant day all around. Debate continued well into the small hours for the Merseyside delegation, and as the five made their way north up the M6 on the Sunday, there was tiredness, but also a sense of optimism.

Authored by Hetty Wood and James Roberts.

The Importance of Oldham

And now for the anti-climactic calm after the excitement...
 

In case your inbox has not been inundated with requests to go campaigning in Oldham and you had managed to get away from the media (please do tell me how), there has been a by-election which Labour won.

Labour’s victory and the margin of it is being taken as a 'clear message' to the government against VAT and cuts, a poll against the coalition government’s policies, the first nail in the coffin. Well, unfortunately not. As great as it is to win the election, let’s not get carried away. This result does not mark the beginning of the end, nor is it indicative of wider public resentment. What does this result really mean? Honestly, very little.

Labour’s share went up by 10%. Great! But look at the numbers and Labour’s vote only increased by 500 votes. Furthermore there was ‘only’ a decrease of 3000 for the Liberal Democrats, hardly reflective of the 20% they lost in opinion polls and scarcely the collapse we all anticipated. Even though this was such a closely fought and tightly ‘won’ – using the word loosely – seat in May, the majority now is pretty much the same as it was in 2005 and 1997. It is easy to get carried away with the victory, but it was not as decisive or momentous as some are making it out to be, and gloating certainly is not in order. The result shows neither a collapse for the Liberal Democrats, nor a return to Labour of Liberal Democrat voters.

An even harsher reality for Labour is that the government won more votes than Labour; the combined vote for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives was 15,641 while Labour won 14,718. Scarcely a “clear message” against VAT rises or cuts, and even less a great accolade for Labour or Ed. It would be interesting to speculate what the result would have been under an AV system; we may not be gloating so much. Clearly there is much work Labour needs to do, both in Oldham and nationwide. A continuous campaign is needed, as much work in the next four to five years as there was in the last week.

We could cautiously compare this to the by-election in Norwich North in 2009. In that by-election Labour lost 26.7%. That by-election meant something. That was a humiliation for Labour and a compelling victory for the Conservatives. That was a 'clear message' to the Labour government (it was at the time of the expenses scandal, which although a cross bench incident, Labour took the flak for). By comparison, the results of this by-election and future Barnsley by-election mean little. I am not trying to belittle or sour a victory, but this is not huge. Or as Andy Burnham put it; “it would be wrong to read too much into it.” (Perhaps he noticed that the combined government vote exceeded Labour’s).

Baroness Warsi presented three arguments on the BBC for the Conservative vote-share, which saw its vote halved, and all were poor. First she claimed low turnout. That would surely not affect the Conservative vote to a greater extent than the Labour vote? Second, “it was a by-election”, this reason makes no sense; do Conservatives not campaign in by-elections? Have they no money? Being hit by their own policies? Done the decent thing and donated their campaign chest to fund hospitals or private investment? The third argument was that Labour held the seat since its creation in 1997, which is a fair point as it’s not a traditional Conservative seat. However the Conservatives still got 11,773 votes in May and this excuse does not mean they should not have campaigned. It is so obvious that the Conservatives did not put much into the campaign, but what it does highlight is a dilemma they faced which I shall go into later.

Some good news is that the BNP vote went down by 1000, which is unusual as one would have expected more given the circumstances. Still, no complaints. Especially as they won over 5000 votes in 2001 and over 2000 votes in 2005 and 2010. One worry is the unfortunate and inconvenient fact that the core BNP vote; working class white men, are or were core Labour voters. The worry being that if it was simply that they voted Labour, then that could suggest the 500 more votes Labour won came from the BNP and not from Liberal Democrat voters. Of course, it’s impossible to know given the secret ballot. All that really matters is that the BNP vote went down, something we can all agree is good news for Oldham.

Lets counter that good news with some bad; the turnout was below 50% (at 48%), down 13.1% or 10,000 votes. 10,000 voters who voted in May decided not to vote this time. That is more people than any of us have spoken to campaigning put together. Given the circumstances and the disgrace of Phil Woolas, this is not totally surprising, but it is still worrying. By-elections have the tendency of mysteriously low turnout; it could be that local people are sick of the media spotlight or it could be ‘democratic fatigue’ – maybe twice within a year is too much for some people. People have every right not to vote, but as politicians it is our task to try and push turnout up and increase participation. It is my belief that the Labour party is the vehicle for deliberative democracy and that we should be pursuing deliberation – direct democracy is too chaotic and populist, representative democracy is too distant and aloof. As for turnout, I still do not think it necessary to implement compulsory voting, but I do support the idea of having a 'None of the above' option on the box. Low turnout is indicative of low trust in politics in general, the primary task of Labour now should be to rebuild that trust and reconnect with people. To fight negative and dirty politics while also reconnecting with the people. If we rebuild trust, turnout will go up and democracy is saved – hurrah!

There are two important signs we should take from this by-election; the potential tactics of the other parties and possibly a tide against negative politics. This by-election shows a dilemma for the coalition government. The Conservatives, no matter what Warsi says (what is her problem?), did not show up to win but likewise the Liberal Democrats were in an unusual position of defence and were unable to pick up Labour voters. Neither party were able to criticise each other, but they also could not support each other – hopefully this will lead them to more positive campaigning. But hope springs eternal.

However, there is another dilemma seen in this by-election, one for Labour. Due to the secret ballot this is speculative, but it is plausible that the reason the Conservative vote dropped by 7000 is due to them switching their vote to the Liberal Democrats, tactical voting to oust Labour. Now in Labour-Liberal Democrat contested seats, Conservative voters have no qualms about voting Liberal Democrat and that could prove decisive.

The real significance of the by-election comes from the nature of the recall; negative campaigning backfiring. Dirty politics does not pay and is not welcome; this should be the message for all politicians. If we want to truly reform politics, truly change the attitudes to politics, we must change the attitude of politics, we must oust and eliminate all negative politics – then, and only then, will politicians be trusted again. So, good on Labour for kicking Woolas out, and hopefully more to come from all parties. That is not the kind of politics we should be advocating or even allowing to exist. More control against negative politics and more effort by politicians to rebuild its reputation is imperative; kick out the rot and set up guidelines for political etiquette.

A victory? Yes, by all means; Labour won the seat. But we should not read too much into it or exaggerate it. It is not a hammer blow to the government nor a show of praise for Labour. There are lessons to learn from this; the main one being to move away from negative politics, an endeavour very close to me (it is the main reason I got involved in politics in the first place). There is still much work for Labour to do, and a change away from negative politics should be central to the renewal of the party and of parliament; not only can politics be different but it will be different. A positive attitude is part of the “Eight P program” (Positive, Populist, Pragmatic, Principles, Pluralism, Positivism, Personalism, Praxia). Although it’s great that Labour won, tougher tests await – the next one Barnsley Central. Which begs the question; why can’t there be a by-election in the Lake District or somewhere nice?

[Note:- no offence to anyone from Barnsley – I have never been, it might be a lovely place for all I know]

Ten for Twenty-Ten, Part 2

Following from yesterday’s post, here are the final five points of 2010:

6. Ed Miliband
Whilst the press jumped on the appointment of the youngest Miliband (who won by by less than 1% in the final round) as being heavily influenced and therefore prejudiced by the Unions as a step backwards those within Labour recognised that Ed was the best man to break away from the previous pettiness that has so dominated inter-party relations, and move us on. Dubbed Red Ed almost instantly, and rather ridiculously, Miliband was slated across almost all the papers and it wasn’t long before he was being judged far too harshly as in the pockets of the Unions and as someone who would take Labour back to the ‘bad old days’. However, you’ve got to remember that he was the elected leader, and that those Union members that helped him succeed are ordinary members of the voting public. The voters had spoken and they wanted to move 'back to the left', and with Ed Miliband at the helm there is an excellent chance of this happening. Though he’s been involved at the top level for years, he was a relatively fresh face and a surprise winner to the contest, but he was the right winner, and with him, Labour can accept the challenge of regeneration and take on the government as a strong, prepared and capable opposition. He has also started to act for the next general election by crowd-sourcing for policy and building up the party from within. This, along with his social, civil and political rights agenda, we're afforded a welcome change from the top-down statism of New Labour. We now have a strong core, increasing membership and a capable leader: we need to use this to our advantage and be ready to take on the ConDems whilst they are in government and then at the next elections to ensure that we get back into power.

7. The Blair & Mandelson Books
These days it’s autobiographies that you can find filling up the bestseller lists, so it’s no great surprise that two of the biggest releases were the memoirs of Tony Blair and of Peter Mandelson. The expectation of such tomes is now so prevalent that it would be surely more unusual to find a former leader, or one of ‘influence’, not releasing a book shortly after their term; indeed Brown is already being quizzed as to when his version of the past two decades will be completed. Which brings me to my concern that future political figures will act, not always in the best way despite themselves, but how it would best be conveyed in text. Sexed up and with scandal dripped out in conveniently sized morsels through the broadsheets, perhaps our desire for the intimate details of their lives is counterproductive and unnecessary. Do we really need to know who shagged who, who punched who and who has a deep dark secret that actually isn’t so deep or so dark with the temptation of a sizable advance? No. In an ideal world we’d be able to move away from this red-top fascination with personal lives and instead focus on what actually matters, and hopefully in the future we can actually let our politicians act like this instead of feeling compelled to make everything ‘interesting’.

8. Phil Woolas
The dethroning and subsequent vilification of Phil Woolas has certainly split opinion in the party as a very definite schism was formed. As two camps established themselves, you were pro-Woolas, and believed him to have been unfairly treated, an elected representative being scapegoated and an all round nice guy, or you were with those who thought that he got what was coming to him and that the type of literature and campaign that he ran was rightly condemned. Though this is by no means a scientifically accurate sample of the split, it seemed to be that members of the PLP and those close to them were in the former and ‘ordinary’ members the latter. Labour was divided and we need to learn from this divide. We also need to learn that campaigning of the sort that Woolas did (blatantly aggravating, malicious, and false) is not and will never be acceptable, no matter what a ‘good guy’ he is, or that he ‘deserved’ such a seat. As a party we need to be united, not divided, and should never been seen to condone this type of behaviour. It is not with underhanded techniques and patronising leaflets that we will win elections and be secure in our mandate, but by honesty and sincerity.

9. Student Protests
Arguably the biggest game changer in how politics on the left has been fought, and will continue to be fought, this year was the protests in London and across the country in response to the three-fold rise to university fees and against the ConDem cuts in general. Despite the label of ‘progressive’ and desperately justified by the government, the public decided that enough was enough and took to the streets en mass to register their disapproval at such unfair policy. Violence soon followed the peaceful demonstrations that were organised and occupations sprung up the length and breadth of the country. Naturally the comparisons to the 1980s came thick and fast, but this is a new age of protest. This is the time of social media, of Web 2.0, of smart phones and flashmobs; this is the time that protests can be ‘leaderless’, can be spontaneous and can be fought. The disgusting use of kettling by the police (particularly the met) has displayed just how free the right to protest is, and this must be opposed as much as possible. Indeed, it was easy to see how protesting tactics evolved over the course of the wave of protests starting in early November; students decided that the best way to get their message heard was to avoid police kettles by splintering and moving fast over the icy winter roads, while launching legal actions against the worst excesses of the police. Though it can sometimes feel as though these demonstrations have been commandeered by certain factions (not affiliated with Labour) and that the direction they can take may be counter-productive, 2010 has seen a definite rise of direct action and this is sure to continue. As a Party, and as a people, we need to work with this rejection of apathy and build upon it. People, and in particular young people, are interested in Politics again, and this can never be a bad thing.

10. Wikileaks, etc.
What does privacy mean? Not much these days, let’s face it. Whether you have been reading the (admittedly mostly dull) release of the cables from Wikileaks or have found it tiresome and pointless, it cannot be denied that there is a degree of importance to this. Personal liberties may have been becoming increasingly restricted, but governments are not above this level of inspection either. Freedom of Information requests are on the rise and with Parliament still in the shadow of the expenses scandal, politics is becoming less smoke and mirrors, less nudge-nudge wink-wink and an act which is performed behind doors between those ‘in the know’ and is turning into more open sphere. We would do well to remember this and to act accordingly. Governmental leaks will inevitably happen again and again, and when they do we should have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing that we wish to have hidden, which means that starting now we need to be aware of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ more than ever before, and not just assume that Situation X can be brushed under the carpet forever. Yes, there are certain issues and diplomatic situations which should not be in the public arena due to their very nature, but should such matters come to light, we should work so that there is nothing unethical or basely wrong that we have done during such procedures.

And so there we have it, ten events which have changed the way we should be doing, and responding, to the world around us. What do you think? Are there any other events which you believe have had an even greater influence over the past 12 months?

Next year will surely be more interesting with the continuation of protests, the referendum on voting, the Liberal Democrats dealing with their massive decline in support and a new leader for Labour who will have found his feet. We are in the midst of interesting times for the country, and for Labour, and we need to unite and to consolidate on this, the best we can.